F 685 

•B85 SPEECH 

Copy 1 



Of 



i 

HON. JESSE D. BRIGHT. OF INDIANA, 

1 1 * 



/ \ 



ON THK BILL FOR 





THE ADMISSION OF KANSAS AS A STATE. 



DELIVERED IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, MARCH 20, 18S8. 




PcBiasnJED 27 IWDIANIANS' DEMOCRATIC ClDB. WASHINGTON, D' 

185 8. 



SPEECH. 



Mr, President : The constitution of Kansas, with all the circum- 
stances, it is believed, directly or remotely connected with its forma- 
tion, being now before us, the question is : Shall the Territory be 
admitted as a State, under that instrument? 

Undoubtedly it is the policy of the government that her Terri- 
tories should be converted into States as rapidly as a due regard to 
the welfare of their inhabitants will permit. This is alike the interest 
of both — of tlie general government on the one hand, to be relieved 
from the local maintenance of the Territories ; and of the Territories, 
on the other, to be relieved from that interference of Congress which 
must unavoidably continue to exist, to a greater or less extent, so 
long as they remain in their condition of dependency. Whilst a 
Territory is in its infancy, unable through weakness — a paucity of in- 
habitants, sparsely settled, and of very limited means — to sustain 
itself, the propriety of extending over it the paternal care of the gen- 
eral government must readily be admitted ; but, whenever it has ac- 
quired sufficiency of strength to bear the burden of its own support, 
it is due to the rest of the community to be relieved from it. Each 
State of the Union, under our system of government, has to maintain 
its own local organization, and why not the Territories, whenever 
they possess the ability ? The only means by which this can be ac- 
complished — the only way which has hitherto been devised of trans- 
ferring the sustenance of the Territory from the common to the local 
treasury, where it more properly belongs, is by admitting it into the 
Union as a State. What the exact expense of maintaining our Ter- 
ritories is it is not necessary to inquire. We know, liowever, that it 
must be very considerable ; and that whatever it is, it is defrayed out 
of the national treasury of the States, whilst the States in addition 
have to sustain the charges of their own separate organizations. It 
is but right that every community should bear the burden of its own 
support, and whenever a Territory, by the strength of its numbers, 
has acquired that ability, its inhabitants should not only be permitted 
to form their own separate government, but if they refuse, should be 
coerced into the measure by all fair and just appliances known to the 
Constitution. The States have an interest in this, which it is their 
right and their duty to protect. 

But there are higher and nobler considerations than mere pecuniary 
ones involved iji the creation of new States. The addition of a State 
is an addition to the strength and stability of the Union, riveting 
more firmly the bonds that make us one people and giving us increased 
consequence, which is power in tlie eyes of other nations. Of the 



policy of admitting new Statea, or of adding them as rapidly as pos- 
sible, there surely cannot exist two opinions. The general policy, 
therefore, being in favor of the admission of Kansas, the inquiry 
arises, wliat valid objection can be urged against it ? The principal 
one presented is, that the constitution before us was not, after its for- 
mation, submitted as an entirety to a vote of the people, for their 
ratification or rejection. 

I liave always favored, Mr. President, the doctrine of non-interven- 
tion. From the time of its first enunciation by that eminent states- 
man now at the head of the State Department, up to the present hour, 
it has always found in me a supporter and advocate. Eight years 
ago, when this chamber was illumined by the light of those great in- 
tellects of Kentucky, South Carolina, and Massachusetts, which have 
since gone out forever, we congratulated ourselves and the country 
that, by the application of this principle in the acts organizing the 
Territories of New Mexico and Utah, we had established a practical 
rule of action for all time to come, in reference to the domestic affairs 
of the States and Territories, which should command, by its own in- 
trinsic justness, the approbation of the people of every portion of the- 
Union, and should relieve Congress for the future from those angrj' 
seciioual strifes which, for the j^revious thirty years, had endangered the 
peace and perpetuity of the government. The principle is so just 
itself, so admirably adapted to the spirit and genius of our institu- 
tions, that my wonder is it was not earlier adopted, or being adopted 
that it should haveafterwardsencounteredsucli violent hostility. Yet, so 
it was ; though it finally received the endorsement of both the great 
political parties of that day, it met for a time, nay, still meets with 
the fierce opposition of all that class of men who have been and yet 
are laboring to impose restrictions upon the free exercise of sovereignty 
in the Territories. 

Of the power of Congress to legislate for the Territories I have 
never entertained a doubt. Within the limits of the Federal Constitu- 
tion their authority is supreme. Within those limits they possess the 
same power over the Territories that is exercised by the several States 
within their respective borders. But power is one thing and the ex- 
pediency of its exercise another. Whilst Congress, in my judgment, 
possesses the power, past experience has demonstrated how dangerous 
it is to the peace and harmony of the Union for Congress to attempt 
its exercise in reference to the domestic affairs of the Territories. Its 
inexpediency was shown by the ill blood and bitterness which it 
generated within these walls and throughout the country. For relief 
and peace we turned to that rule of non-intervention by which Con- 
gress has been since governed, and which has received the decided 
approbation of a large majority of the American people. 

With v/hatever zeal and energy I possessed, I sustained the princi- 
ples of the Kansas and Nebraska act. By its provisions I am now 
ready to stand or fall. It meets no less the approval of my judgment 
now than wlien it was first urged upon the considerati^on of the Senate. 
I was then and am now ready to leave the people of the Territories free 
to decide their domestic institutions for themselves. I am as willing 
that they should select the mode, as that they should have the power 



of decision. If I had thought when I sanctioned the principle that 
the people of Kansas and Nebraska should be free to decide their do- 
mestic institutions for themselves, that I had intervened to prescribe 
the mode in which that decision should be proclaimed, I should have 
done more than hesitate. I should have halted before I violated a 
principle in its very enunciation. Whilst declaring for non-interven- 
tion, I should never have been willing to intervene against it. It is 
just as much an offence against non-intervention that Congress should 
require one piece of legislation as another. It violates the theory upon 
which the act was based as much for Congress to prescribe the raanner 
in which the constitution should be framed, and the requisites of its 
efficacy, as that they should require a provision affecting the domestic 
interests of the Territory to be incorporated in it. The only value of 
such a principle as runs through the Kansas-Nebraska act is its entire 
consistency and coherency. If violated, even remotely, its virtue is 
gone forever. It makes no difference by what instrument the outrage 
is effected, it matters not whether it be the voice of Jacob or the hand 
Esau, if the soul of it, the vital principle which sustained it and 
gave it both beauty and power, is violated. Who ever supposed when 
the Kansas-Nebraska act was passed that Congress would ever after- 
wards be troubled with the 'question as to the mode in which the con- 
stitution of Kansas was to be passed ? Who believed that it would be 
cause of offence if it was adopted after the form of approved precedents? 
If the matter of that constitution accorded with the Constitution of 
the United States, did we not put ourselves solemnly on the record 
that we would not intervene against it? Were we then, too, perpe- 
trating what has become so familiar a word of late in the vocabulary 
of certain senators, " a swindle?" I sent forth the pledge to the 
country that I would not refuse the constitution of Kansas, unless its 
provisions were in conflict with the Federal Constitution. That pledge 
I intend to redeem at all hazards. No objection is made, so far as I 
can learn, against any provision of that instrument as being contrary 
to the Constitution of the United States. If there be any such, pro- 
duce it, and hold it up to public denunciation. If there be none 
such, let those of us, at least, who said in effect that such should be the 
only ground of rejection, be silent. 

The only complaint made is as to the method of the making. Is 
theic anything in the Constitution of the United States which pre- 
scribes the mode in which Territories shall be initiated into the mem- 
bership of States? If there be any such clause my reading has never 
shown it to me. If, then, the Federal Constitution does not prescribe 
til* manner in which constitutions shall be made, and if there be 
nothing in the constitution now presented which is in conflict with 
the Constitution of the United States, in all sincerity and candor I 
ask, how can we, who agreed to make that the only test, refuse to 
admit Kansas into the Union? No law of 'Congress, no regulation 
made by the legislative authority of the Union, has been violated or 
evaded. The properly constituted and legally authorized civil power 
of Kansas, after full proclamation of its purposes, adopted this con- 
stitution, in the way in which other constitutions have been adopted, 
and in the way approved by the philosophy and genius of our govern- 



a 

ment. Nay, more: tlie legislature of Kansas in its procedure took 
counsel from this body, and framed, both in principle and detail, the 
act calling the constitutional convention upon the model of the bill 
of the honorable senator from Georgia, (Mr. Toombs,) which received 
the decided approval of the Senate. It secured to the bona fide inhabi- 
tants of Kansas a fair election of delegates. It provided for a registry 
of the legal voters of the Territory. It did everything that a bill could 
do to effectuate the purposes that were stamped upon the face of it. 
Accidental or wrongful omissions by the sheriff could be remedied by 
the probate judges. There was no legal voter in the entire Territory 
who could not avail himself of the provisions of that fair and honest 
act under which the election was held and delegates chosen. No 
hostile bayonets drove freemen from the polls — no despotism sat there 
enthroned to dictate the vote. The act of the territorial legislature 
of Kansas calling the convention has extorted, even from unwilling 
lips, the commendations of praise. The honorable senator from Illinois 
(Mr. Douglas) himself uses the following language: "80 far as the 
act of the territorial legislature of Kansas calling this convention was 
concerned I have always been under the impression that it was fair 
and just in its provisions. I have always thought the people should 
have gone together en mousse and voted for delegates, so that the voice 
expressed by the convention should have b^en the unquestioned and 
united voice of the people of Kansas. I have always thought that 
those who stayed away from that election stood in their own light, 
and should have gone and voted, and should have furnished their 
names to be put on the registered list so as to become voters. I have 
always held that it was their own fault that they did not thus go and 
vote ; but yet, if they chose, they had a right to stay away." 

Under the provisions of the law calling tlie convention the people 
of Kansas were left entirely free to form their own domestic institutions. 
If perverseness and taction there and elsewhere dictated a policy which 
kept either a minority or majority from the polls, the fault was with 
the offenders only. Their mouths, at least, are sealed against a com- 
plaint. It does not become them to come before the country denouncing 
an act which, according to their own confession, was performed in their 
presence, and which, they say, they had the power to prevent. If any 
outrage was perpetrated it was, according to their own statement, the 
outrage of a minority in the face of a majority, ijroceding quietly to 
exercise rights which had been conferred by virtue of law. Which of 
these two classes is entitled to our respect or consideration ? Those 
who, in obedience to law, expressed themselves at the ballot-box, like 
loyal citizens, or those who stayed away for the known purpose of 
fomenting a rebellion, whose standard had already been lifted in the 
Territory ? This latter class viewed a legal constitution as a calamity 
worse than murder and rapine. Topeka was dear to them, because it 
was illegal. To inaugurate Topeka under the forms of law would bo 
to ignore the very purposes for which Topeka was spoke into existence. 
To them Topeka was only a darling so long as he was a bastard — the 
bar sinister endeared him — the proposal to crown him with the honors 
of legitimacy was worse than a "swindle." 

If the adoption under the forms of law of a constitution similar to 



that of Topeka had not, in the opinion of the non-voting population 
of Kansas, been the greatest calamity that could befall the authors of 
that instrument, and the cause for which it was gotten up, they would 
have quietly, under the protection of law, voted at the election for dele- 
gates to form a constitution. Their first purpose being a determina- 
tion to keep up anti-slavery agitation, tliey determined to make every 
other thing bend to it. Accordingly, they refused to vote, and, in 
some cases, forcibly prevented the registration ; and now, with a sub- 
limity of impudence which is without a parallel, set up their own 
perverseness and fliction as a reason for defeating the expressed will 
of the voting population of the Territory. 

Nothing, Mr. President, can be clearer to my mind than the proposi- 
tion that the act of delegates legally elected, and acting within the 
scope of the powers conferred upon them, is the act of the people them- 
selves. According to the genius and theory of American constitutions, 
it is entirely immaterial by what majority such delegates are elected, 
or what number of voters appeared at the polls. The act of the dele- 
gate, moving within the authority conferred upon him, is the act not 
only of those who expressly deputed him, but of those who had the 
opportunity to do so. It stands as the act of all such until legally set 
aside or modified by competent authority. This principle is a maxim 
both of law and political science. The representative idea is the especial 
boast and glory of our system. It is both its corner and keystone. More 
than anything else it distinguishes our system from those which have 
prevailed in other stages of the world's history. It stands midway 
between despotism and popular caprice. It protects against both. It 
gives stability and intelligence to government. To it, more than to any 
other cause, we are indebted for whatever of glory and power have 
gathered around the American name. Whilst it recognizes and adopts 
the great principle of democracy that the people are the source and 
origin of all political power, it so modulates and controls that doctrine 
as to make it subservient to the purposes of justice and right. Our 
fathers did not stumble on it by accident. It was no sudden thought 
even. It was born of wisdom. It was introduced into our State and 
federal constitutions, and made a practical power there, by men who 
had studied the past and found out its true teachings. If the domain 
for which they were framing a system of government had been as nar- 
row in its limits as ancient Attica, they still would have adopted it. 

Experience has fully vindicated their sagacity. That they regarded 
this great principle not only as just but as the only practicable one, is 
easily seen by even a careless observer. Under the system devised by 
them majorities were not only represented, but sections and even 
minorities. Both under federal and State constitutions minorities 
may have the representative control. The majority never has that 
control unless it takes care to have itself represented. Sometimes even 
that control is expressly prevented. Delaware on this floor is made 
as potential as New York. In the more popular branch even, he who 
represents the convictions of a majority exceeding five thousand has 
no more power in the enactment of laws than a colleague who may 
have succeeded by a majority of one. No majority ever so large can 
impress itself upon legislation except by first controlling the representa- 



8 

tion. No matter liow unanimous public sentiment may be, no matter 
liow strongly a conviction may have fastened itself upon the people, 
they are utterly and entirely powerless for all the purposes of legis- 
lation except through the medium of representation. The repre- 
sentative opinion may be in conflict with the popular voice — an 
overwhelming majority may raise an indighant jjrotest against the 
expressed legislative will, yet it stands as the controlling law until 
set aside in accordance with legal forms. He who supposes that the 
opinions of a majority, even when clearly expressed, necessarily makes 
the laws, has mistaken the whole theory of our government. That 
majority, before it can make itself eifectual, must fix upon its repre- 
sentative and clothe him with the authority to speak in its behalf at 
the proper time and place. 

Not only is this so, but all of our constitutions and charters, federal, 
State, and municipal, are based upon the theory, that whenever the 
people, or any portion of them, have had an op)>ortunity of voting 
and neglect or refuse to do so, the only fair and proper presumption 
is that either they have no convictions which they wish to express, or 
that they acquiesce with those who have voted. This presumption is 
so absolute that lor wise and proper reasons it is not allowed to be 
contradicted, no matter what may be the facts. A member of the 
House of Rei)reseutatives may be returned by a single vote. It would 
be no argument against his right to a seat that ten thousand men 
could be found in his district who would have voted against him. In 
like manner it would be no sort of objection to the validity or force of 
a law passed by his vote that every man in his district was opposed to 
its passage. 

As far as tlie federal government is concerned, there is no contriv- 
ance known to the Constitution by which the poAver of making laws 
of any kind, fundamental or not, can be transferred from the repre- 
sentative to the people. No amount of public sentiment outside the 
legislative halls can enact such a law. The function of legislation 
must be performed by the representative, and by him alone. The pur- 
pose of our fathers was, on the one hand, to remove legislation as far as 
practicable from clamor and sudden gusts of passion, and on the other, 
to preserve that accountability of the representative to the people, 
which is always sure to secure, sooner or later, the fullest and amplest 
recognition of popular sentiment. The good sense and sound judg- 
ment of the country, I believe, is prepared to sustain this principle, 
not only in the making of ordinary legislative acts, but in the framing 
of constitutions. The better opinion now seems to be, that State 
legislatures cannot refer the propriety of a passage of a law to the vote 
of the peoj^le. My own State has taken decided ground on this ques- 
tion. She was unwilling to let the matter rest upon argument, or 
judicial decision. She has incorporated a provision in her constitution 
which expressly prohibits the submission of a proposed law to the vote 
of the people. She believed that representatives, elected by the people 
and accountable to them, constituted the only proper body for deter- 
mining the propriety of legislative acts. She was unwilling even to 
allow that body to divest itself of that function. She took the effectual 
means of making sure and fixed the responsibility of the representa- 



9 

tive, by fastening upon him a duty from which no power above or 
below him could relieve him. 

If this principle of the submission of important provisions to a 
direct vote of the people who are to be affected by them grows out of 
the theories upon which our government has been established, v»'hy, 
then, is it ignored in federal and State constitutions, and by solemn 
judicial decision ? If the principle be so essential,, why has it not 
been authoritatively recognized somewhere ? If, as has been claimed, 
this right of the people to decide directly by what provisions they 
shall be governed, be a great principle which flows directly from our 
form of government, why, I ask, has the practice been almost in- 
variably otherwise ? The truth is, Mr. President, that this principle 
so confidently claimed, instead of being salutary, is vicious. It has 
been so pronounced by those wise men who gave form and vitality to 
the glorious government under which we are now enjoying privileges 
and blessings unknown to any other people on earth. The true 
American idea is, that legislation, whether it be in the ordinary form 
as enacted by legislatures, or in the establishment of the fundamental 
law as enunciated by State constitutions, should be fully consummated 
by men selected by the people for that very purpose. It makos no 
difference in principle whether the thing which is to be done be the en- 
actment of an ordinary law or the establishment of a constitut' mi . They 
are both of the same class. They both constitute the law. 'J . both 
establish a rule of action. The philosophy of one is the philosophy 
of the other. If there be more solemnity in one procedure than the 
other, that does not affect the principle. Both regulate the conduct 
of the citizeii, and are to be determined by one and the same reason. 
In point of fact, ordinary legislative acts are of more moment to the 
citizen in determining his actions and fixing his responsibilities than 
mere constitutional provisions. They reach his person and his hearth- 
stone. They define his rights, prescribe his duties, and point out his 
remedies. Their hand is upon him, asleep or awake. They are 
above him and around him, his panoply and shield. The nearest as 
well as the most distant relations of human life are made subject to 
their power. The rights of property, the sanctities of home, nay, of 
life and death, are all within their embracing fold. No subject is too 
high, none too tender, none too minute for their reach. Although 
such varied and vast interests are confided to legislative bodies, it has 
only been within a few years past, and then only at rare intervals, 
that the proposition of submitting a law to the direct vote of the 
people has been seriously considered. I hold it to be the clearest de- 
parture from the wisdom of our fathers which modern days with 
their new ideas have produced I am proud that my own State has 
put its emphatic seal of condemnation upon a heresy so noxious. 

Whilst I am free, Mr. President, to admit the binding force of State 
constitutions, I am compelled to say that, for several reasons, their 
importance in this country has been greatly exaggerated. Constitu- 
tions and charters, municipal, provincial or nati.^nal, in other coun- 
tries and ages have been concessions wrung by force, or purchased by 
money, from what was there and then deemed the seat and origin of 
power. Their importance and value, under such circumstances, could 



10 

flot be too highly estimated. Like Magna Charta, they stood between 
the people and usurpation. They were pleaded against wrong and 
outrage. They were the horns of the altar to which the people clung 
when ruthless oppression laid the hand of violence upon them. The 
service which they rendered in behalf of the people fully vindicated 
their claim to profound reverence. In our country, however, where 
the people are recognized as the origin and seat of political power ; 
where constitutions flow from them, instead of being concessions to 
them ; where the remedy for an abuse is in their own hands, to be 
exercised at any time and in their own way, the case is far different. 
With us, State constitutions are mere organizations. They are merely 
pieces of political mechanism — simple contrivances lor organizing legis- 
lative, judicial, and executive branches. One power is made to lodge 
in one place, and another resides elsewhere. In their declaration of 
general principles, they but repeat the common law, which our fathers 
brought with them, and which would be law without such repetition. 
So far even as the limitations in them are concerned, they are but 
restrictions upon the agents of the people, which can be removed or 
modified at their pleasure. Even against a provision contained in the 
constitution itself, it can be amended. Wherever the doctrine prevails 
that all power is lodged with the people, to be exercised by them for 
their own benefit, such must be the necessary consequence. Where 
the power to make exists, there also the power to modify exists, if the 
rights of none others intervene. If royal power could not rightfully 
abrogate constitutions and charters, it is because the rights of other 
parties do intervene. In our country, however, there is no other party 
but the people. They make for themselves, and can unmake. There 
is no power anywhere to prevent. When the people of a State deter- 
mine to change their constitution, there is no political body in exists 
ence which can interpose. The distinction, in this respect, between 
our federal and State constitutions is apparent. One is a compact 
between several parties. Any one can claim the observance of any 
provision. To a State constitution, however, there is but one party. 
It is merely a rule of action devised by themselves for themselves 
alone. There are no obligations in it of which other political bodies 
■can claim the benefit. At the pleasure of the party which made it, it 
can be unmade. Any provision in it which pretends to take away 
that power or delay its exercise is impotent against the majesty of the 
people. I hold it, therefore, Mr. President, as incontrovertible, that 
the constitution of Kansas now presented, so far as it conflicts with 
the interests, or even caprices, of the people of that Territory, can be 
altered at any time and in any way, at their pleasure. Nay, more, 
I hold that if the proposed constitution be obnoxious to the people of 
Kansas, the surest and speediest way of securing to Kansas a consti- 
tution agreeable to her people would be to admit her to the compan- 
ionship of States, under the Lecompton constitution, and then leave 
her as a sovereign power to adjust her own affairs without interference 
from any quarter. Once admitted into the Union, the contest loses 
its national character, (an event which every true patriot should 
desire,) and the determination of her }>eople will stand as the law and 
the fact for the youthful State, 



11 

So strong, Mr. President, is my conviction of the viciousness of the 
principle of submitting to a direct vote of the people the propriety of 
the enactment or rejection of laws, that for one I am prepared to ex- 
tend the same objection to a submission of entire constitutions to the 
same tribunal. I know that others entertain different views, and 
particularly under the peculiar circumstances which existed in Kansas 
after the convention had concluded its labors. Our patriotic Presi- 
dent, anxious for the quiet and peace of the country — desirous of al- 
laying all excitement in relation to the affairs of Kansas — prompt to 
take away even the shadow of an excuse from the rebellious bands 
then hatching treason in the Territory — was favorable to the expe- 
diency of the submission of the constitution to a direct vote of the peo- 
ple, though at all times clear in his own mind as to the fight of the 
convention to determine that matter for itself. Believing, however, 
as I do, that constitutions are but laws, and that the enactment of one 
requires as complete an exercise of sovereign power as the framing of 
the other, there must be an extraordinary combination of circum- 
stances, in any case, to make me relinquish the convictions which I 
have carefully formed on this subject. 

Independently of other objections to the submission of entire consti- 
tutions directly to the people, how can an intelligent vote be given 
by those who attempt it ? If a constitution consists of fifty articles, 
and thirty of them accord with a person's convictions, and twenty are 
more or less obnoxious, what is his vote at best, under such circum- 
stances, but a compromise? How can you have intelligent voting 
when fifty diverse and unconnected propositions are to be determined 
by one ballot? Nay, more : it is very easy to conceive such a thing 
as a probable result, that, although each and every article, if submited 
one by one, would receive a majority of votes, the whole, when pre- 
sented together, would by a combination be defeated. It seems to me 
that even if there were no vital and cardinal objections to such a 
course, the uncertainty and unsatisfactoriness attending it would be 
formidable obstacles in the way of its adoption. 

If, however, the dignity and importance of a constitution rise 
superior to mere legislative enactments, I ask if there is anything in 
the history of the country — anything in the practice of the founders 
of our constitutions. State and federal, which teaches us that it is 
necessary that even so solemn an instrument should be submitted to 
a direct vote of the people ? Wha,t question could be superior in 
dignity or importance to that of the adoption or rejection of the federal 
Constitution ? States were called on to surrender a portion of their 
sovereign powers, and to give in some cases to the general government 
the power of life and death over their own citizens. There were 
peculiar reasons, too, in addition to all this, which might have been 
urged as an excuse for the submission of the Federal Constitution to the 
people. The path pursued by its framers had been untrodden before. 
All other federations had been failures. In Kansas, on the other 
hand, the constitution is almost a stereotype of those of the new 
States of the northwest, which have sprung into power and strength 
within the history ot a few years. In nine-tenths of its provisions it 
is similar to those which have been approved by actual and successful 



12 

working. Notwithstanding this material difference in the two cases, 
in no instance was the question of the adoption or rejection of the 
Federal Constitution submitted to a direct vote of the people of any of 
the thirteen States. And yet it was adopted by the people. The 
instrument itself says so. Every word of that immortal document, 
from preamble to conclusion, was carefully scrutinized j and its force 
weighed by men who well understood the force of language. Nothing 
was put in by mistake or left there by inadvertence. 

They meant what they said. They said, not only in words in tHe 
preamble, but in substance in the body of that instrument, that in 
the system which they then inaugurated for the perpetuation of free- 
dom and the securing of domestic tranquillity in the new world, the 
acts of the representatives of the people should be deemed the acts of 
the people themselves ; and that, at least, as far as national relations 
were concerned, the people should express their convictions only 
through representation. If there be one grand cardinal idea more 
than another stamped upon the Constitution, it is that. So decidedly 
is that the case, that the Constitution allows no amendment by popu- 
lar vote, but specifically requires that all change shall be acted on by 
the legislatures of the States. In those days, at least, the opinion 
prevailed without any contradiction, that when a constitution or other 
instrument was adopted by representatives speciall)^ selected to con- 
sider the subject, it was adopted not only by the people who voted for 
those representatives, but by every one who had an opportunity to 
vote for them. The opinion entertained at that day, so far as I can 
learn, has never been questioned by any respectable authority, until 
anti-slavery agitation, for its own purposes, brought about the state 
of affairs now existing in Kansas. Even during that other period of 
anti-slavery agitation, when Missouri applied for admission into the 
Union as a State — when the restriction was imposed whose removal I 
favored in the Kansas-Nebraska act — it was not contended either that 
a constitution framed by representatives legally authorized to act was 
not the act of the people of Missouri ; or that it was necessary or 
proper to submit the proposed constitution to a direct vote of the 
people. It Avas reserved for later days, for those of our own time, to 
start into being this new theory. If it be, as its friends and admirers 
claim for it, a vital principle, why has it slumbered so long without 
having been recognized even in debate? 

Mr. President, it has always seemed to me that those who concede 
the legality of the Lecompton constitution and acknowledge the force 
of the Kansas-Nebraska act, surrender the whole argument. To reject 
an act framed by a convention which had the authority to pass it in 
that form, is unquestionable intervention. It is the setting up of our 
will against that of the people affected, as expressed by a lawful and 
competent body. It is saying to Kansas that our convictions shall 
prevail against hers, although the latter have been announced in due 
form of law. 

It will not do at this late day, after a struggle which convulsed the 
country from centre to circumference, to say that the Kansas and Ne- 
braska act was not an enabling statute, but only amounted to an 
uthority to petition for redress of grievances. The people of Kansas, 



13 

or any portion of them, or any recognized body, legal or illegal, would 
have had such a right independent of the Kansas act. Whatever 
may be our view of present questions, let us at least hold on to what 
we have gained in the past in its full integrity. The Kansas and 
Nebraska act meant more than a mere authority to petition for redress 
of grievances. It had a far deeper significance and import. It gave 
form and life to the Territories, but left them, after their organization, 
perfectly free to regulate their own domestic affairs, through their 
own legally constituted governing authority, subject only to the Con- 
stitution of the United States. If that means a bare authority to be 
beard in the form of a petition, truly was the victory which we thought 
would bring peace to the country barren and fruitless. I adopt no 
such opinion. No such construction was given to it in discussion. 
That act contained two great ideas which at the time received my 
cordial approbation, and are no less dear to me now ; they are, first, 
non-intervention, and, secondly, acquiescence in the action of the 
legally constituted territorial governing authority, subject to the pro- 
visions of the Federal Constitution. To them will L hold so long as 
they stand in plain, unmistakeable language, unrepealed, upon the 
statute book, let whosoever may desert them or impair tlieir force by 
fanciful interpretations. 

I have said, Mr. President, that there was no obligation resting 
upon the convention to submit any portion of the constitution to a 
direct vote of the people. The convention, however, moved by consid- 
erations of expediency, submitted what acting governor Stanton called 
"the great distracting question" to the people of the Territory. 
There was no dispute of any moment save on the question of slavery. 
That Kansas should be constituted mto a State ; that it should be re- 
publican in form, with the usual division of legislative, executive and 
judicial departments, all were agreed. The Lecompton convention, 
acting upon this idea, submitted the only vexed question, and the 
friends of Topeka, true to their former course of faction, refused to 
vote. Tl:iey had proclaimed, before the constitution was framed, that 
it was their purpose to reject it, no matter what provisions it con- 
tained. Although accounting themselves the especial champions of 
freedom, they suffered the slavery clause to be incorporated in the 
constitution, rather than vote for the remaindei' of a constitution 
which has been the subject of but little complaint. In plain words, 
they refused to vote becaiise it was made by a set of delegates duly 
elected under authority of law, instead of being made by another, 
elected in defiance of it. They ended in faction what they had begun 
in rebellion. By no act of mine Avill I give aid, comfort or counten- 
ance to any such movements. 

If it be alleged that the " free-State party," as it termed itself, re- 
ceived pledges that the entire constitution should be submitted to the 
people, I answer, in the first place, that they were unworthy recipients 
of any such, if made ; and, secondly, that no one had anv authority 
to make such save the convention itself ; and if maat-, were ;:rxira- 
official and void. 

Even if I had been inclined to look with flavor upon the policy of 
the submission of constitutions to a direct vote of the people, and 



14 

believed, further, that the wishes of a lar<!;e majority of the people of 
Kansas had been disregarded in the formation of the Lecoraption con- 
stitution, still I should not have been prepared to vote against accept- 
ing it. The present aspect of the slavery question demands that 
merely abstract opinions should be sacrificed to the welfare of the 
whole country. It seems to have been the constant and unceasing effort 
of a certain party in this country to foment strife, and array one section 
against another. Throughout the whole of my political life I have 
been in firm and decided opposition to that party, and I expect to 
remain so until its close. I look upon this constant agitation of the 
question of slavery as dangerous to the continuance of the Union. It 
has already, within my own recollection, weakened the bonds of fra- 
ternal regard between north and south. I consider it to be the first 
duty I owe to my country to use every effort in removing from the 
arena of national politics this disturbing cause. To that end nothing 
can be more acceptable to me than to transfer all the difficulties 
of Kansas from this floor to the proper forum of their adjustment, 
within the limits of that Territory. No matter what had been my 
personal convictions on the abstract matters which have been the 
subjects of debate during the latter part of the session, I should joy- 
fully have welcomed any proposition whose object was to localize 
within comparatively narrow limits Avhat has been a cause of irritation 
to the luhole country. Such, I understand, is also the position of the 
great party with whom it has ever been my pride to act, and. of the 
distinguished statesman now the Chief Executive of the Union. The 
present is not the first occasion in which the democratic party has 
stood in oposition to agitation or faction. Heretofore it has always 
been successful. I trust the same fortune awaits it agjain. No matter 
how fierce may have been the contests which it has waged, it 
has always returned from tlie field of victory increased in power. 
What it has lost by defection it has more than gained in perma- 
nent strength. The history of the country is the illustration of its 
triumphs. To the almost total exclusion of all other parties it has im- 
pressed itself upon the legislation of the country. Its pen has written 
your statutes. No law which it has pressed but has been adopted ; 
none that it opposed, but has been defeated or repealed. Apostates, 
inflamed by disappointments^ have turned in new-born hate against 
it, and have rended themselves. It has flung defiance to insult from 
abroad, and has stood the champion of the Constitution at home. It 
has added untrodden millions of acres to your domain, and has made 
the flag of the Union honored on every sea. To ihe fortunes and 
progress of that noble party I intend to adhere. If it be overtaken 
by defeat, I know that it will rise again with greater abilitj'^ to fulfill 
the mission which I believe Providence has intrusted to its hands. 
That mission will never be one of alienation, discord, or faction. It 
will be one of peace^ of union, of progress. 

To me it is a subject of congratulation that, in the present crisis, 
we have in the executive chair a patriot whose firmness and courage 
have been often tried. He belonofs not to that class of men whom ex- 
citement unnerves. Clamor has no terrors for him. In the present 
case he has calmly surveyed the whole field. He has taken his posi- 



15 

tion and entrenched himself there. He has viewed the question before 
us in all its bearings, present and future, and has decided in favor 
of no section. He has recommended a course which, if adopted, will 
prove a measure of peace to the whole country. His counsel is emi- 
nently wise and proper. He has brought to the examination of this 
matter a practical and sagacious mind, thoroughly familiar with all 
the facts of the case. He has announced to us with great clearness 
what are his convictions. I trust they will receive the consideration 
to which they are entitled, both from their intrinsic value and the 
distinguished source from which they come. In that event, we may 
again congratulate ourselves and the country that another cause of 
agitation has been removed from the halls of Congress. 



iLS^"^ °'' CONGRESS 



016 085 203 3 



1 



